109 BETWEEN THE SPECIES Egalitarianism and Animals ABSTRACT The moral consideration of nonhuman animals and the critique of speciesism have been defended by appeal to a variety of ethical theo- ries. One of the main approaches in moral and political philosophy today from which to launch such a defense is egalitarianism, which is the view that we should aim at favoring the worse off by reducing inequality. This paper explains what egalitarianism is and shows the important practical consequences it has for nonhuman animals, both those that are exploited by humans and those in need of aid in the wild. Egalitarianism implies rejecting speciesism, and in practice it prescribes ceasing to exploit nonhuman animals as well as assist- ing them. Moreover, because they are worse off in comparison to humans, egalitarianism prescribes giving priority to the interests of nonhuman animals. Due to this, egalitarianism gives us extra rea- sons to defend them beyond those entailed by other nonspeciesist approaches. OSCAR HORTA University of Santiago de Compostela Volume 19, Issue 1 Aug 2016 © Between the Species, 2016 http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/ 110 OSCAR HORTA 1. Introduction Consider the following cases: Robin Hood. In some country, a small group of very poor people are suffering significantly. Harsh weath- er conditions have ruined their harvest, and they find themselves in terrible indigence. There are, however, many other people in this country who are quite rich. If the rich gave some of their wealth to the poor, they would improve their situation significantly. However, they refuse to do so. The rich also claim to have prop- erty rights which protect against any redistribution of their wealth. Nevertheless, a defender of the poor, Robin Hood, violates those rights (or alleged rights) by stealing from the rich to help the poor. Shelter. Ten dogs and five pigs live in an animal shelter. The shelter facilities are arranged in a way that makes it possible for the dogs to have a high quality of life, although it leaves the pigs in a rather poor situation. Eventually, however, the managers of the shelter carry out some space redistributions, giving more room to the pigs. As a result, the pigs end up much better off than they were before. Neither the pigs nor the dogs can now enjoy the great state in which the dogs were before. But everyone is still pretty well off, and no one has to endure the deplorable conditions the pigs used to suffer. In this new arrangement, the increase in the happiness of the pigs is smaller than the reduction in the happiness of the dogs. But there is greater equality, and nobody is miserable. © Between the Species, 2016 Vol. 19, Issue 1 http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/ 111 OSCAR HORTA Some may claim that what Robin Hood is doing is wrong, as it is a violation of the rights of the rich. Others may claim that both what Robin Hood did and what the people running the shelter did were wrong, because they reduced the total sum of happiness in those scenarios. There are many who would disagree, however, and claim that Robin Hood and the people at the animal shelter did the right thing. Who would claim this? Those who affirm that we should fight inequality and give spe- cial consideration to the interests of the worse off. This claim characterizes egalitarianism, and it matches the opinions many people hold quite well. No wonder this position has gained growing support in moral and political philosophy in the last decades (see for instance Berlin 1955–1956; Williams 1973; Nagel 1979; 1991; Rae et al. 1981; Arneson 1989; Sen 1980; 1992; Temkin 1993; Parfit 1995; McKerlie 1996; Roemer 1998; Cohen 1989; 2000; Holtug and Lippert-Rasmussen 2006). Egalitarianism has many important social and political cor- ollaries for humans, of course. But it also has far more sig- nificant consequences for nonhuman animals than many would think at first. Egalitarianism implies that we should reject speciesism (the discrimination against those who don’t belong to a certain species, which is commonly directed against non- human animals [Horta 2010a]) and animal exploitation. More- over, it entails that the defense of nonhuman animals must be a priority for us, since they are worse off than human beings. This means that we must not only abstain from harming non- human animals, but also work actively for them. This conclusion shouldn’t be surprising, as the moral con- sideration of all sentient animals has been defended by way of all those theories that are most widely accepted today in eth- ics. Some theorists have argued for the moral consideration of © Between the Species, 2016 Vol. 19, Issue 1 http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/ 112 OSCAR HORTA nonhuman animals by an appeal to some very general moral intuitions, with which different ethical perspectives may be compatible (Singer 2009 [1974]). Others have taken a pluralist approach, combining what different viewpoints say in its de- fense (Clark 1977; Sapontzis 1987). Others have maintained it in light of a Kantian-inspired rights view (Regan (2004 [1983]; Pluhar 1995; Francione 2000; Korsgaard 2005; Franklin 2005) or a contractarian approach (VandeVeer 1979; Rowlands 1998). Others, in accordance with a virtue ethics perspective (Dom- browski 1984; Nobis 2002; Hursthouse 2006; Abbate 2014). Or according to a capabilities approach (Nussbaum 2006). Or a utilitarian perspective (Singer 2011 [1979]; Matheny 2006). Or care ethics (Donovan and Adams 2007). It would be strange if egalitarianism were not added to this list too. To be sure, most of those who call themselves egalitarians have failed to see the implications of egalitarianism for non- human animals. There have been exceptions (Persson 1993; Arneson 1999; Vallentyne 2004; Holtug 2007; Bruers 2014; Faria 2014). There was even an early pioneer, Lewis Gompertz (1997 [1824]), who defended an egalitarian view and its appli- cation to nonhuman animals in the early 19th century, advocat- ing veganism before it even had that name, as well as aiding animals in need of help in nature. Still, a detailed explanation of the consequences of egalitarianism for nonhuman animals hasn’t been carried out yet. Even more importantly, the egali- tarian approach to the moral consideration of animals remains ignored for the most part in the literature on both egalitarian- ism and animal ethics. As a result, most animal ethicists and animal activists with an interest in the ethical foundations of concern for nonhuman animals are unaware of it. This is par- ticularly regrettable since many of them probably have egali- © Between the Species, 2016 Vol. 19, Issue 1 http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/ 113 OSCAR HORTA tarian intuitions and might readily support this viewpoint if they knew about it. This paper aims to help to address this lack of awareness by explaining how egalitarianism can ground an antispeciesist viewpoint. The paper argues that those who reject the conse- quences that egalitarianism has for nonhuman animals are not assuming what egalitarianism actually entails. It also claims that egalitarianism places even more importance on the inter- ests of nonhuman animals than other theories do. In order to do this, section 2 describes what egalitarianism is, and section 3 clarifies how this view differs from other per- spectives. Then, section 4 explains what kinds of different egal- itarian positions there are and argues that similar consequences follow from all of them with regard to nonhuman animals. This section also distinguishes between a general and a more specif- ic way to understand what egalitarianism is. Section 5 explains why accepting egalitarianism entails considering the interests of nonhuman animals and rejecting speciesism. Then, section 6 explains the practical consequences that follow from rejecting speciesism, which entails both ceasing to exploit nonhuman animals and helping them actively. Next, section 7 explains why egalitarians should give priority to nonhuman animals. It argues that nonhuman animals are in general worse off than humans, whether they are under human exploitation or they live in the wild. Then, section 8 considers an objection to this conclusion based on an appeal to moral status and argues that such an objection must be rejected. After that, section 9 argues that egalitarianism provides extra reasons to defend nonhuman animals beyond what other nonspeciesist approaches may en- tail. Finally, section 10 summarizes and concludes. © Between the Species, 2016 Vol. 19, Issue 1 http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/ 114 OSCAR HORTA 2. What Is Egalitarianism? To put it very simply, egalitarianism is the view that we should aim at reducing inequality. A bit more technically, we can say that egalitarianism is the view that we should bring about a less inegalitarian distribution of happiness or wellbeing (or of whatever else is good), or, alternatively, of what is needed in order to achieve that good. The reasons to defend this view aren’t difficult to guess. In the world we live in, some happen to have bad lives (or even terrible lives), while others fare quite well. This happens mostly for reasons that are completely irrelevant in moral terms (Ber- lin 1955–1956), or even for reasons that are blatantly immoral. In some cases, this is due to oppression, while in others it’s just a result of sheer luck. To many of us at least, all this is unfair, or just bad. Given two individuals who are equally deserving of and have an equal interest in having a good life, why must one of them suffer in misery? This doesn’t mean that equality is the only thing that matters for egalitarians. Consider a situation in which half of a certain population are leading very good lives while the other half are faring terribly.